Briefing on the
Forced Administration of Fluoride in Public Water
Supplies

Mr. SK O'Neal on 14 October,
2014

Introduction

The thesis that the government is so concerned about
our tooth health that is has chosen to mandate a
very expensive programme to fluoridate our water
supply is specious at best, and is commonly
recognized by many who study fluoride chemistry and
the unadvertised roots of international policies now
governing the agendas of federal agencies, as an
insidious process of population engineering and
control, and, as implied by some analysts, a subtle
and deliberate act of heinous genocide under a skin
of duplicity not unlike arsenic
poisoning. Although a fully
bibligraphed treatment of the subject is feasible,
such is a very long study with tentacles embedded in
every facet of our society, so please allow me to
offer the following specific considerations al la
carte in this more urgent format:

A) Tooth enamel vs other tissue - the
proposition that tooth enamel is deemed structurally
reactive to sodium fluoride and related compounds
while simultaneously neglecting involvement with all
other body tissues orders of magnitude more reactive
to fluorine, is technically insolvent, if not
reckless. Arguments repeated by health
professionals based upon the comparatively low
toxicity of sodium fluoride are rendered moot by
this absolute differential in tissue incorporation,
and leave unanswered the complex chemistry of, for
instance, common ion effect and many complex
metabolic phosphate avenues that might produce
organophosphate and other non-orthomolecular
fluoride involved toxic compounds inside the body
under chronic long term exposure.

B) In "Truth About the Wunderwaffe,' Igor
Witkowski's discussion of Nazi organophosphate
poison gas agents clearly indicates that of the
three organophosphate poison gases made during WWII,
one carries a cyanide bond and the two others carry,
in the corresponding position, a fluoride atom, all
other bonds being hydrocarbon to the central
phosphorus. Major insecticides and modern
nerve agents are organophosphates incorporating
fluorine.

C) fluorine, Chlorine and Bromine are Iodine
antagonists. Our population is chronically
iodine deficient, with a common denominator of
thyroid insufficiency and its associated
disorders. Bromine, instituted for use in our
grains and flours, chlorine compounds used in public
water, and now fluorine, in highly variable doses,
all compromise thyroid iodine metabolism, and are
potentially the root of many endocrine (hormonal)
imbalances and diseases. fluorine, the the
most electronegative of the halogens, is uncommon in
the biochemical arena of living organisms as it
tends to be bound up in minerals and when made
chemically available to living tissue becomes
excessively reactive and, as mentioned particularly
antagonistic to the essential metabolic halogen,
iodine.

D) The Third Reich used fluorine compounds to
passify (chemically lobotomize) prisoners.
Arguably, these compounds were more active forms
than sodium fluoride and in higher dose rates, but
chronic long term exposure to fluoride compounds can
approach these total exposures, and with
indeterminate results. One analysis of
fluoride bioavailability indicates that due to
temperature and aerosolisation, showering in
fluoridated water poses an even larger body burden
of fluorine than drinking it, and greatly increases
the variability/uncertainty of fluorine intake
(dose) to the body.

E) Some psychotropic drugs, including Prozac,
for instance, are fluoride compounds. In
general, it is arguable that fluorine is
neuroactive, and in item B above, clearly in some
circumstances at least, neurotoxic.
It is also notable, per video discussion (cf John
Moore 2010), the warnings on toothpaste to contact
poison control if swallowed (due to the sodium
fluoride content).

F) A primary use for fluorine in the last
century was as yellowcake (uranium hexafluoride)
used to separate weapons grade uranium from natural
uranium. Presumably large quantities of the
residual fluorine compounds still exist, and some
sources suggest that dispensation through the water
supplies is an avenue to discharge these toxic waste
inventories. The least generous position, but
one that has considerable basis of research,
suggests that fluorine administered through public
water supplies is part of a global population
reduction programme in keeping with the Cobden Club
recommendations to the United Nations Security
Council to curb population growth, arguably an
implicitly genocidal process. Such
considerations offer corporate motivations for the
occult dispensation of fluoride waste.

G) Lithium has also been proposed as a forced
supplement to water supplies. Lithium
carbonate has a long history as a primary medication
for bipolar disorder, and is psychotropic compound
to be considered in context with sodium
fluoride. Lithium also carries significant
kidney toxicity that is ameliorated by single large
doses of lithium carbonate in lieu of divided doses
throughout the day so that the kidneys may clear the
salt for a period of time and recover.
Application in public water supplies implies a
chronic ultimately divided exposure.
Appearance of such a an application of lithium to
the water supplies increases the scope of evidence
of the intended philosophy of forced medication
through the water supply (and by other routes as
well?).

Conclusion

In keeping with the Introduction and inclusion of
the considerations above, and the results of
extended research such implies, I propose that
sufficient uncertainty exists about the integrity,
competence of execution of the public interest, and
organic loyalty of government agencies, at all
levels, as to demand summary suspension and
disenfranchisement of all proposals for water supply
fluoridation, as well as a full review of many other
federal, state and international intrusions into the
affairs of our people, as may carry the stain of
poor stewardship and to possibly include
treason. Although such a consideration
may seem obtuse to some, it is very much a verified
phenomenon to others, resulting in a significant
portion of our population who intelligently hold
severe reservations regarding the status of
government agency motives. Historical
evidence, apart from the myopic view that "our"
government could never fall victim to such heinous
crimes, shows that every prior powerful empire has
fallen to corruption, notably including the Third
Reich, that had considerable financial and technical
ties with the United States through the Rockefeller,
Harriman and Bush families, to name a few.
I.G. Farben, the Nazi chemical corporation that
produced poison gas for the Reich, and as discussed
by Carter Hydrick separated uranium at Auschwitz
III, is closely tied with the philosophies of
American chemical corporations today. Even
under the most gracious considerations, it is
historically inadvisable for a population to trust
or remain a passive element in the affairs of their
government, and in the evolution of international
corporations and their agendas who routinely lobby
to obtain disproportionate favor towards programmes
not necessarily motivated by serving of the public
interest.

To Wit: especially relevant examples, the prodigious
failure in handling of Fukushima radiation
assessment, the arguably criminal ineptness of the
Ebola situation, and any tenable discussion of the
Affordable Health Care Act - a Trojan Horse bill
that precious few in Congress even read.
Although many governmental employees and individuals
within contract agencies are, in their scope of
compartmentalization of information, arguably acting
in good faith and with the belief that they are
serving the public interest, there exists now so
much researched basis for public discontent as to
reasonably postulate that they are dangerously
naive, and in some cases, at minimum, may suffer a
variety of natural human rationalization induced by
the persuasive power of their paychecks. As an
example, nowhere has this phenomenon been more
historically conspicuous than with the oven-tenders
at Auschwitz, as with the Skinner experiments on
human willingness to inflict pain under sanctioned
authority. A comprehensive treatment of agency
policies and agendas, including for instance, a
plethora of latent executive orders to seize control
of every critical function of society, would fill
volumes, but our lack of full consideration of these
matters will be to our ultimate peril in a world and
nation under so clear a pall of socially sanctioned
corruption that no honest and informed person can
any longer deny.

i) Our
fundamental reserved rights not to receive forced
medication, especially through air, water, food and
other ubiquitous public functions, may be implied
via a modern abstraction of organic constitutional
rights. In any instance of reasonable
question, the right of those not wishing to receive
such treatment through essential public services
completely outweighs any portion of the publics'
desire to receive them, or weight of marginal lack
of concern incidentally favoring their use,
particularly when the application is non-essential
or can be obtained at personal convenience and
discretion.

ii) A
fundamental right of citizens to not bear scientific
or other burdens of proof in any argument posed for
the public good or for any other intention, is
implied by all constitutional provisions under the
consideration of "shall not be infringed," or other
vehicle of abrogation. In essence, burden of
proof must fall on those proposing to apply these
ubiquitous programmes upon the people.

iii) In keeping with
the intent of the Hatch Act provisions, any
--appearance-- of impropriety via involvement of
government employees and officials in activities
that may foster conflict of interest, the arguments
of i and ii above may be further supported by the
argument that a plethora of conflict of interest
exists

iv) It is conceivable
that proposals might be made that those who do not
wish to receive the fluoride are free to filter it
at their homes. But this is, in addition to the
arguments above regarding "forced medication,"
preposterous in light of the relative ease for those
who choose to dose themselves with fluoride, and the
relative difficulty, for instance, in avoiding
exposure in restaurant water and food, and other
public places.

Recommendations

Without hesitation, I must insist that the absolute
result of avoiding incorporation of fluoride in the
water supply be effected. Under the current
collusion of political interests that have mandated
the use of fluoride in the first place, the most
practical solution for a city under 5000 in Arkansas
is to either secure a new independent water source,
even if it means issuing bonds to do so, or else to
construct, at a presumably lower cost, a halogen
filter and re-chlorination facility to restore (or
improve) current standards in water quality and
treatment. I would regard the matter as an
emergency, and also an opportunity for a town that
draws its sustenance from tourism to make a name for
itself in the interest of green and clean
lifestyle. Anything less is sheer hypocrisy,
and carries the consequence of slow poisoning of its
citizens.

RuralSurvival.info℠ (Right-side navigation page SSI
insertion)

Donate to Operations?

We truly need your help to
continue to be able to pay the bills - anything that
you could contribute would be of immense help...